to destroy or preserve life; to increase or diminish human injury; to make mankind more miserable, or to render them infinitely more safe, secure and happy? It proposes the very thing which the law of self-preservation demands, viz: the universal inviolability of human life, now held so cheap and sacrificed so recklessly. Is this doctrine contrary to the law of social affinity? The very reverse. It stretches forth the hand of love to the children of men, and entreats them to consider themselves one great brotherhood; to refrain from murdering and persecuting each other, to love one another, to bear every thing of one another sooner than kill or injure each other. Is not this just what the law of social affinity demands? Is the doctrine contrary to the law of religious and moral obligation? It is an integral part of the divine law, declared and exemplified by the Son of God. It is the keystone in the arch of moral obligation. And to fulfil it in practice is the highest obedience to God,the purest devotion to eternal right. It is putting duty before all things. Is it contrary to the law of rational harmony? Surely not. It eschews all war, all violence, all injury, all social discord, all combatting of wrong with wrong, evil with evil, and lays the only ample foundation, deep on the rock of principle, for the pacification and harmony of the world. If men would only restrain themselves from mutual injury, how soon would they be able to ascertain all important truths, and to correct all essential errors of theory and practice. But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust. "Might makes right," and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies. Is our doctrine contrary to the law of progres.

sion? It is a striking fruit and proof of that law. It takes for granted that man has been a noisy, fretful, buffetted child long enough; that it is time for him to act like a reasonable being; that he ought to be, and can be governed by moral power; that he has been carnally minded long enough, and ought now to become spiritually minded; that he has quarrelled, fought, and been flogged enough; that he is capable of acting from higher motives and better principles than resisting evil with evil; and that he can, if he will only try, "overcome evil with good," and thus approximate the angelic nature. It is emphatically a doctrine of glorious moral and spiritual progress of progress from barbarism to Christian perfection. Nothing can be more untrue, than that non-resistance is contrary to the laws of nature. It is in perfect accordance with them. It is only contrary to the false, foolish, perverse, self-defeating methods, ways and means by which man, in his ignorance and delusion, has heretofore attempted to execute the dictates of those laws. It is at war with man's ignorance, blind self-will, and vicious habits; but not with his welfare, nor the laws of his nature. As well might the inveterate drunkard, bound to the intoxicating cup by long confirmed habit, plead that total abstinence was contrary to nature. It is in fact this very cup which is contrary to his nature; and though often resorted to for preservation and invigoration, it has crowded him to the brink of an untimely grave. Still he clings to it as his life and health. Just SO our drunkards of injurious resistance. They can depend on nothing so confidently as the means of deadly resistance for self-preservation and personal security. They imagine that if they were to renounce these, their

lives, rights and happiness, would have no protection left. But they will one day learn better.

A LAW OF UNIVERSAL NATURE. LIKE BEGETS ITS LIKE.

I will now introduce another law of nature-a law of universal nature-and including, of course, human beings in its scope. It is this, that like must beget its like— physical, mental, moral, spiritual. Is non-resistance con

trary to this law of nature? Does it beget its like? or does it beget resistance? This is a practical question, and will settle the dispute. Either the true spirit of nonresistance begets a corrresponding spirit, or it begets a violent and pugnacious spirit? Which is it? Either the practice of non-resistance tends to disarm and relax the fury of the assailing party, or to encourage, excite, and confirm him in his attack. Which is it? If the latter, it is contrary to that law of nature which necessitates the generation of like by like. If the former, it harmonizes with that law. And if this be true, it is the very doctrine necessary to fill the world with peace. It is worth while then to ascertain the truth on this point.

Let me commence by asking if the very injury I am endeavoring to get discarded is not generated by injury? Why does the assailed person inflict injury on the offender? "To defend himself," it will be said. But why defend himself by doing injury to the other party? "Because that, and that only, will effect the object." How is this certain? What puts it into the heart or the head of the assailed party to repel injury with injury? It is like begetting its like; injury suggesting, prompting, and producing injury. No better way is thought of or desired, than life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blow for blow, force for force, injury for injury. I will

nature.

do unto him as he hath done to me. It is good enough for him. He shall be paid in his own coin. He shall be taught better after his own fashion." This is the feeling and language of the Resistant. Here is a proof that the disposition to injure begets a disposition to injure, and the act of injury induces a counter injury. What, then, will be the subsequent effect? If a man strike me violently, and 1 return the blow with equal or greater violence, will not my blow call for a third, and so on, till the weaker party cries "hold?" This is the law of Does the opponent plead that the aggressor, being severely repelled, and knowing himself in the wrong, will retreat and learn to be civil. This will depend on which of the parties can strike the hardest, and injure the worst. If the aggressor be the stronger party, he will only fight the harder, till his antagonist is subdued. If, however, he be the weaker party, he will yield from necessity, and not from principle-retaining his impotent revenge in his heart, to fester there till a better opportunity. If justice or conscience have anything to do in restraining him, they would work much more mightily on his soul if the injured party should refuse to strike back at all. So the argument in this case turns wholly in favor of my doctrine.

GENERAL ILLUSTRATIONS IN COMMON LIFE.

Let us now look into the common affairs of life, amid scenes familiar to common experience and observation. We see one man with very large combativeness and feeble counteracting predispositions. If this man meets with another of the same character, he is almost sure to fight, quarrel, or at least, violently dispute. He is surcharged and throws off in all directions a sort of phreno

magnetic fluid of war. No sooner does he come in contact with another like himself, than they mutually inflame each other. He carries strife and debate and violence with him wherever he goes. Even many, who are usually civil and peaceable, are presently provoked into a combat with him. He magnetises, to a certain extent, every susceptible being with whom he meets. If he can live peaceably with any, it is those only who from natural predisposition, or moral principle, are non-resistants towards him. These he will make uncomfortable; but by bearing with him, and suffering some abuse with patience, they can keep him comparatively decent, and may pass their lives near him without any serious outbreak. Who has not seen some such persons? And who does not know that such can never be cured by violence and injurious resistance. They may be beaten and bruised half to death over and over again, with no other result than to make them two-fold more the children of wrath than before. This kind of evil is not cast out, except by prayer, fasting and abstinence from violence.

Here is another man with overweening self-esteem. He is proud, haughty, disdainful and overbearing in all his ways. What happens when two such meet? Is there not a reciprocal inflammation of the irritable organs? Do they not mutually swell, defy, and repel each other? Each will accuse the other of the same fault, and denounce such haughtiness as intolerable, never once suspecting that it is a reflection of his own face in the other which seems so detestable. Suppose one of these characters to move among other persons ordinarily humble and unassuming. Let him treat them with marked neglect, scorn or indifference; and what will be the effect? Their moderate self-esteem will be excited. Their attitude